The COVID pandemic has impacted nearly every aspect of global commerce, and the shipping industry is no exception having experienced severe disruption in many different ways. Over the past two years, most maritime lawyers will have received multiple enquiries in relation to delays caused to vessels by COVID, where there is a dispute as to … Continue Reading
In DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 181 (Comm), DHL (“Charterers”) succeeded in an application against Gemini (“Owners”) to set aside an arbitration award pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”). Mr Justice Jacobs held that a “subject” provision in a putative fixture requiring … Continue Reading
Recently, Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter reported on a recent arbitration award in which Reed Smith acted, regarding the requirements for notice under the 1996 Inter-Club Agreement (ICA), as amended in 2011. The decision concerned a notice that, on the face of it, bore no resemblance to a usual ICA notice as it: a) was given … Continue Reading
In London Arbitration 2/20 the tribunal determined that it had jurisdiction under a standard “Gencon 94” form “law and arbitration” provision, which had been incorporated into the charterparty through the wording of the parties’ recap email. Factual summary The charter was evidenced by a fixture recap email. The email contained various detailed provisions relating to … Continue Reading
The question of whether COVID-19 would forever change the world as we know it remains to be answered. For the time being, however, the pandemic has certainly changed the way we live and conduct business. In an effort to adjust to the current requirements of strict social distancing, we have had to be creative and … Continue Reading
On 13 March 2018, the Court of Appeal reversed the Commercial Court decision in Tonicstar Limited v (1) Allianz Insurance PLC; (2) Sirius International Insurance Corporation. Legatt LJ gave the leading judgment in which it was held that a QC with more than ten years’ experience in insurance legal practice is eligible for the appointment … Continue Reading
Hot on the heels of the Sino v Dana decision (reported in our blog on 16 November), the Commercial Court considered the question of notice of appointment of an arbitrator once again in Glencore Agriculture BV (formerly Glencore Grain BV) v Conqueror Holdings Limited [2017] EWHC 2893. This is another case where the Respondent (Glencore … Continue Reading
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore Ltd & Anr [2017] EWCA Civ 1703 Background The case looks at the question of when notices of arbitration passed to a counterparty’s agent can be considered effective service on the counterparty in circumstances where that the agent is not authorised to receive the … Continue Reading
This week the Commercial Court handed down judgment in Tonicstar Limited v (1) Allianz Insurance PLC; (2) Sirius International Insurance Corporation ( PUBL) (London Branch) [2017] EWHC 2753, a matter where the question was whether a barrister was a person “with not less than 10 years’ experience of insurance or reinsurance” for the purposes of … Continue Reading
In London Arbitration 11/17 it was held in respect of a charter on an amended NYPE 93 form, incorporating the BIMCO Piracy clause and the Conwartime clause, that: A claim for reimbursement of additional premium (AP) for transiting the Gulf of Aden and a call to Yemen was not analogous to a claim for hire … Continue Reading
In a recent decision, the Paris Court of Appeal refused to enforce an LMAA arbitral award on the basis that the underlying contract was affected by illegality on account of corruption. Introduction Pursuant to article V of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, a national authority may … Continue Reading
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v. Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and Another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm) A recent English High Court decision serves as a reminder of the importance of taking great care in relation to service of notice to commence arbitration. The case concerned whether the notice was sent to the correct party. … Continue Reading
NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV (Respondent) v Cargill International SA (Appellant) (“The Global Santosh”) [2016] UKSC 20 (overturning the Court of Appeal [2014] EWCA Civ 403) The Supreme Court last week handed down an important decision concerning the issue of when a charterer will be held responsible for its agents under a charterparty. Contractual position NYK … Continue Reading
The recently decided case of SBT STAR BULK & TANKERS (GERMANY) GMBH & CO KG V COSMOTRADE SA (THE “WEHR TRAVE”) [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) in the Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court and before The Hon Sir Bernard Eder will, perhaps, come as a surprise. This was an appeal pursuant to section 69 … Continue Reading
Mitigation and the assessment of damages on early redelivery – “The New Flamenco”[1] Assessing the level of damages recoverable following the early redelivery of a vessel under a time charter can be a complex area of law to navigate, especially when there is no available market at the date of the termination of the charter. … Continue Reading
Mr Justice Knowles CBE’s judgment in Glencore International AG v (1) PT Tera Logistic Indonesia (2) PT Arpeni Pra [2016] EWHC 82 (Comm) considered whether the wording of a notice of appointment of an arbitrator was sufficient to stop the running of time under section 14(4) Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”) in respect of the … Continue Reading
Reed Smith (Lianjun Li and Min Li of the Hong Kong office, Nick Shaw and Halani Lloyd of the London office) recently represented the successful Charterers in Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co. Ltd v Daewoo Logistics [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm). The Respondent Owners chartered their vessel to the Claimant Charterers by a fixture note, … Continue Reading
London Arbitration 20/14 Facts A vessel was chartered on an amended Gencon 94 form, for a part cargo of petcoke. A completion cargo of wheat was also arranged. The petcoke cargo was loaded first, however its receivers had not negotiated a provision that it be discharged first. The wheat cargo was carried on a “last … Continue Reading
London Arbitration 18/14 The vessel in question was the subject of two charters on the NYPE 46 form, for one time charter trip under each, with the second charter being in direct continuation of the first. Performance claims Clause 128(1) of each charter provided: “Owners not to be responsible if the vessel under the currency … Continue Reading
London Arbitration 19/14 Two new buildings were let by Owners to Charterers on an amended NYPE form for a period of about 35 months up to 37 months. Hire was to be paid semi-monthly in advance. Clause 55 of the charter allowed Owners to withdraw for non-payment of hire after the expiry of three clear … Continue Reading
London Arbitration 14/14 The vessel in question was chartered by way of a fixture recap. Owners brought a claim for demurrage against Charterers. Charterers argued that the charter did not contain a valid arbitration agreement/clause, and that although they had agreed to pay freight, they had not agreed to be liable for demurrage. Incorporation of … Continue Reading
Viscous Global Investment Ltd v Palladium Navigation Corp [2014] EWHC 2654 (Comm) The Claimants had claims for cargo damage against the vessel Owners arising under four bills of lading. The vessel was the subject of a chain of three charterparties. The head and sub-charter provided for London Arbitration (two arbitrators unless a sole could be … Continue Reading
Also written by Alexander Sandiforth. London Arbitration 10/14 The vessel was the subject of a voyage charter containing the following at clause 11: “Any dispute arising from and in respect of this Charter Party shall be referred to and settled by arbitration in London … Any claims must be made in writing within 3 (three) … Continue Reading
London Arbitration 11/14 The vessel was the subject of a voyage charter, under which the vessel was not accepted for loading. Owners argued that the rejection amounted to a repudiatory breach by Charterers and claimed damages for that breach plus damages for detention. Charterers argued that it was Owners who were in repudiatory breach, because … Continue Reading
